That's okay I have little tolerance for liberals who claim to be professional historians and who are so blinded by their IDIOT-OLOGY that they cannot READ and comprehend what is written in a message board. Prove the assertion below by identifying the post that says the "fed" exclusively caused the great depression. The closest one is meter of BS's first post(decidedly invoking class warfare a leftist trait btw). Nothing like trying to make a strawman argument to rail against, is it mr professional? Well except catching a loser attempting to do so. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from smilingsynic: When I read that the Federal Reserve "caused" the Great Depression, I know that I am dealing with a right-wing hack who is too lazy to undertake a real study of the past. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If YOU had read my post carefully you'd know that I was not even addressing it in response to you or to anyone here. I did not quote anybody here, because no one said that here. If someone had, I'd quote them first. Really, what is your problem? I HAVE read elsewhere about people blaming the Great Depression exclusively or largely on the counterproductive actions of the Federal Reserve, and there ARE perpetual bears who have weblogs who have been predicting (for what seems like forever) that there will be a depression caused largely by a credit bubble the Fed has left grow out of control. These "economists" are largely ideologues who simply hate the Federal Reserve. Heck, there is even one in Congress (Ron Paul (TX), who if he really practiced what he preached would leave the Republican party and become an independent). I was referring to them, not to you. But THIS is addressed to you: you are going on my ignore list. You do not provide evidence for your assertions, and you have little to contribute to this board other than insults. Life is too short to waste on people like you. Goodbye, and good luck.
ROTFLMAO OH OK so now you claim to have been making a soliloquy arguing the counter point to a point THAT NO OTHER POSTER HERE MADE. hmm maybe you should look up what a strawman argument is mr professional historian? Thanks for ADMITTING MY POINT put me on ignore... Is that what you have to do to protect yourself from conservatives who embarrass you too much by your own lack of logic? you have little tolerance for conservative rhetoric ,lol you meant my fragile position won't tolerate scrutiny!!
As Schumpeter put it, policy does not allow a choice between depression and no depression, but between depression now and a worse depression later: "inflation pushed far enough [would] undoubtedly turn depression into the sham prosperity so familiar from European postwar experience, [and]... would, in the end, lead to a collapse worse than the one it was called in to remedy." For "recovery is sound only if it does come of itself. For any revival which is merely due to artificial stimulus leaves part of the work of depressions undone and adds, to an undigested remnant of maladjustment, new maladjustment of its own which has to be liquidated in turn, thus threatening business with another [worse] crisis ahead"
LoL, the reality is: social security is nothing but a great ponzi scheme marketed to ignorant people as an insurance product.
Yeah, they were partially responsible for things getting as bad as it did once the snowball started rolling downhill, but the Fed didn't start it. Check out "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by Griffin for more background on the Fed and Depression era.
How dare you! If it comes from a progressive web site it must be true! (Sarcasm off) Just another attempt to heap lies and distortions about Social Security onto the ignorant.